*****************************EXCERPT****************************************
James Sexton says:
Anthony, not to quibble, it is after all, Hansen’s statement, and we know how he believes historical information can be dynamic and ehem fluid , but I believe the story now adds the caveat of a doubling of CO2 also. I just wanted to give you a heads up so you can prepare for the backlash of criticizing one of the high priests of CAGW.
REPLY: Thanks. I saw that and there’s lots more, I just needed to limit this one blog post as it was getting large. I’ll have more later. – Anthony
*******************************EXCERPT******************************************
chris y says:
This paper is a shocker.
Hansen has conceded that the error bars around forcings due to volcanic aerosols (both their magnitude and their persistence), and the error bars around the sequestering of heat into the deep oceans, are at least as large as the forcing due to all anthro CO2 emissions. Yet only a few years ago Gavin S. published a short letter in Physics Today bragging about how well the models were able to replicate the behavior of global temperature during and after the Pinatubo eruption, and that this was settled science. Oops.
Hansen has also invoked reduced solar activity to help explain the last decade of flat temperatures, which implies that short-term solar forcings are similar in magnitude with anthro CO2 forcings. This is being invoked at a time when CO2 forcings are purportedly their largest in millenia. This is completely antithetical to the IPCC reports, which poo-poo solar as a minor player on the forcing bench compared with the CO2 star.
In other words, after nearly a half-century of computer climate models (Manabe assembled one of the first back in the early 1960′s), they are still curve-fitting exercises with no predictive skill on any temporal or spatial scale.